Been seeing things like this for about 6-7 months now that big brother can spy on with your cell phone wonder whats next soon we wont have any freedom.. http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/cell_phones_take_out_the_batteries.htm
cell phones
- Thread starter Jaycolo
- Start date
BerettaCougar
New member
Yeah it sucks, but you do have the freedom to not own a cellphone.
It's a luxury not a need and it's controlled by big brother.
I think the general rule of thumb is...your "privacy protection" ends as soon as you or your sound leaves your household.
This has been posted before FYI
It's a luxury not a need and it's controlled by big brother.
I think the general rule of thumb is...your "privacy protection" ends as soon as you or your sound leaves your household.
This has been posted before FYI
BerettaCougar
New member
Contact a lawyer....you never know.
But I think the "it's for your protection" crowd over power us privacy loving folks.
Thank the northeast region and west coast.
But I think the "it's for your protection" crowd over power us privacy loving folks.
Thank the northeast region and west coast.
Guy B. Meredith
New member
Cell phones make great targets.
JuanCarlos
New member
I don't know, seems like there are plenty of people who are willing to give the government more power in exchange for privacy in the flyover states, too...as long as it's done in the name of fighting terrorists, of course.
This surfaced in a court trial of some Mafia types when it was revealed that GM's ON*STAR service could be activated remotely to listen in within an automobile without the driver being aware of it. It's since been revealed that this also works with cell phones.
Need a cell phone but worried about privacy?
Simple solution - put cell phone in shoe box with a cheap radio that's not quite tuned to a local talk-radio station. With the speaker facing the mic, all they'll hear is static and mumbling, and it's harder to reverse-filter it.
Need a cell phone but worried about privacy?
Simple solution - put cell phone in shoe box with a cheap radio that's not quite tuned to a local talk-radio station. With the speaker facing the mic, all they'll hear is static and mumbling, and it's harder to reverse-filter it.
JuanCarlos
New member
Or, you know, just remove the battery. I guess that's no good if you need to be able to receive calls, but it's about as safe as you can get.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I personally have nothing to say that I am afraid the govt would hear. I really don't have a reason to put my phone in a shoebox or remove the battery.
Don't take that to mean I am okay with any of this though. I hate this kind of govt intrusion and it is things like this that make it even more important that our govt operate with a certain level of transparency. That is why the secrecy of this administration really scares me. it makes t mor elikely that they can get away with stuff like this. It is just another reason things like their recent admission to using pvt e-mail accounts instead of the publically accountable ones they are required to use by law.
Don't take that to mean I am okay with any of this though. I hate this kind of govt intrusion and it is things like this that make it even more important that our govt operate with a certain level of transparency. That is why the secrecy of this administration really scares me. it makes t mor elikely that they can get away with stuff like this. It is just another reason things like their recent admission to using pvt e-mail accounts instead of the publically accountable ones they are required to use by law.
Let it Bleed
New member
There is no privacy only secrecy. 
For a while (maybe still) there were some private companies who would "ping" a cell phone and provide an address within 100 feet where the phone was at. Their clients were usually private detectives, repossessors and process servers.
The OnStar/FBI thing was real.
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html
I would guess that the court will find similarly in this case.
The tracking device on cell phones can be disabled but police can still access it. I would guess that this will be used more times to assist the cell phone owner than to entrap them.
The OnStar/FBI thing was real.
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html
I would guess that the court will find similarly in this case.
The tracking device on cell phones can be disabled but police can still access it. I would guess that this will be used more times to assist the cell phone owner than to entrap them.
No matter what is invented, there will always be ways to tap into the communications stream. Cell phone GPS was intended to assist the owners, but can be perverted. Does anyone think that use of the GPS feature by PIs, repo men, or any other business is any better than the government?
You don't have to have a cell-phone. It's a routinely abused form of communication, anyway. Too many people seem to think that yakking on the phone from the minute that they leave their homes until they return is perfectly fine. They can't drive, are noisy and intrusive in public places, and are definitely in Condition White as they wander around.
Broad-stroke statements like "everything is ok when done in the name of fighting terrorism" are cute, but hardly correct. Face it, there are any number of reasons that are valid to the majority of people for any intrusion into what many of us apparently consider "inviolate territory". Without a doubt, there are people here who see every facet of our lives in danger of some mysterious "government" intrusion. It's what keeps Reynolds Aluminum products flying off of the grocery store shelves.
Has anyone considered that we're not the only ones capable of intercepting such information? We don't have a lock on technology, and money buys just about everything but common sense. Unless you are capable of understanding what can be done, you can't guard against it. That an individual considers it's use an invasion of privacy is a matter for the courts, not a conspiracy-theory.
You don't have to have a cell-phone. It's a routinely abused form of communication, anyway. Too many people seem to think that yakking on the phone from the minute that they leave their homes until they return is perfectly fine. They can't drive, are noisy and intrusive in public places, and are definitely in Condition White as they wander around.
Broad-stroke statements like "everything is ok when done in the name of fighting terrorism" are cute, but hardly correct. Face it, there are any number of reasons that are valid to the majority of people for any intrusion into what many of us apparently consider "inviolate territory". Without a doubt, there are people here who see every facet of our lives in danger of some mysterious "government" intrusion. It's what keeps Reynolds Aluminum products flying off of the grocery store shelves.
Has anyone considered that we're not the only ones capable of intercepting such information? We don't have a lock on technology, and money buys just about everything but common sense. Unless you are capable of understanding what can be done, you can't guard against it. That an individual considers it's use an invasion of privacy is a matter for the courts, not a conspiracy-theory.
wow, people will believe anything if it's aired on fox news. It's a bunch of crap. Anyone that's worked on the technical side of a cell provider or has a decent knowledge of how those devices work knows that this idea is complete and utter nonesense on the level of the moon landings being faked. No, they can't "activate the microphone" when the phone is turned off. When your phone is turned off it's turned off, it doesn't recieve signals so it can't respond to commands and it doesn't transmit signals so it can't even be found. The only difference in turning the phone and taking the batteries out is that the phone's internal backup battery is taken off standby to provide just enough power for the CMOS to retain it's core operating information. That's it.
The FBI cannot listen to your conversation is the phone is off. Anyone telling you different simply doesn't know how cell phones work. I don't doubt this feature may become available in the future but as of today there is not a single phone on the market that can do this nor a single American provider that would allow this.
I don't want to pile on here, but there are things that people should be aware of:
1) Every cell phone provider can record all digital calls. How long they are archived depends on the provider. It is a trivial process to fork the data stream and copy it as it is digital. Wiretaps are built into the system.
2) All new phones come with GPS chips that can be queried remotely. (no idea on whether that query works when the phone is "off")
I disagree with the assessment that american providers would not allow this. There isn't exactly a history of pushback by them in the past.
Very true. Digital data, by definition, has to be recorded, copied and archived to be transmitted. Analogue calls, on the other hand, do not need to be recorded by default but most often are.
Also true. It's that GPS system that connects you to the right call center for customer service and 411. It also connects you to the right 911 dispatch so you're not speaking to hometown cops if you need to make an emergency call while away from home.
That being said, that feature can't work when the phone is off. A phone's internal battery doesn't even have the power to run the reciever let alone actually transmit signals. All they power is the internal components essential for operation. When a phone is turned off main battery power stops flowing.
Good point.
Still, none of them currently do this because it's not within their capability. Phones are simply not designed to work without main battery power and they don't have that power when the phone is off. Again, this doesn't mean it can't happen in the very near future if someone decides to tell Samsung, Sony, Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson to do so but currently there are no cell phones on the consumer market with this ability.Besides, the audio on most phones is crappy enough when speaking directly into the damn thing. Imagine how bad it would be shoved in a pocket.
Well, technically that isn't true as it is a software switch, not a hardware one that powers off the phone. It wouldn't be hard to make a phone look like it is off when in fact it isn't. I'm sure this was a vector spies have been using since they came out, but you are right that there is no evidence that there is any commercial widespread use today.
Let it Bleed
New member
Wow! I don't know which is more outrageous: the content of the story or the fact that it evidently was pure crap.
I know very little about electronic communication, but I suppose I have seen enough BS presented as news regarding topics that I do know about to believe the story may be crap based on other posters responses. Thanks for the info.
If the story is a crock, I wonder if Fox will admit the mistake.
I know very little about electronic communication, but I suppose I have seen enough BS presented as news regarding topics that I do know about to believe the story may be crap based on other posters responses. Thanks for the info.
If the story is a crock, I wonder if Fox will admit the mistake.
Let's see here... 
The story about the GM ON*STAR eavesdropping is true. Federal agents were able to listen in on conversations taking place is a subject's automobile without them being aware of the open microphone. (IIRC the FBI did have a warrant for this operation but I'm not 100% sure.)
ON*Star is a bit different in that it was designed to accept remote activation commands because drivers may be too injured to confused to push the "blue button" to activate the system.
Turning our attention to cell phones, most cell phones control their features through software, especially those that use an LCD screen to control the on/off function. Even an on/off button simply raises a signal to power down. But to power up, some power still needs to be funneled to the button(s) to allow power-up. The question is then, is there power to both the receiver and microphone in the OFF position? Power to the receiver would allow for a remote-on feature (like On*Star). Power to a microphone could allow a voice-activation feature, but would also mean the phone monitors sound all the time.
Given the working time for many cell phones when on "standby" (i.e. no incoming/outgoing calls) can be up to a week, I have a hard time believing the "open mic" theory -- that microphones are always "hot" even when the device is off -- because that would cause a battery drain through the DSP (digital signal processing) chips even if the sounds were not transmitted.
I've received calls from friends who's cell phone activiated in a pocket. Most of what's said is unintelligible. But once, a girlfriend had it in the pocket of her blazer while heading out to lunch with a female coworker. Besides hearing the noise of driving, I could hear most of their conversation fairly well, tell which restaurant they dined at ("Hi, welcome to Chili's, my name is.... and I'll be serving you today.") and some of their lunch conversation. Most of it was boring, except for some interesting comments the coworker made about her boyfriend.
Cell phones themselves do NOT have embedded GPS systems (with a few expensive exceptions). The use of GPS is done by the cell-tower/antenna systems and primarily as a source of accurate timing, not positioning. It's possible to locate a cell phone in a general area (served by that tower) but not down to a 1-30 meter range without triangulating from other towers (something they're trying to do with the E911 systems).
How many people here have cordless phones? I picked up a then-new 2.4 GHz system a while back and the first time I used it I could hear some fuzzy talking as I was dialing. I hit the "channel" button a few times and bingo, I was listening in on a neighbor's conversation with her mother (boring). This is educational as it means your cordless phones can be monitored by any number of people quite easily from outside your house. But, you knew that already, right? Does that stop you from using those phones?
The story about the GM ON*STAR eavesdropping is true. Federal agents were able to listen in on conversations taking place is a subject's automobile without them being aware of the open microphone. (IIRC the FBI did have a warrant for this operation but I'm not 100% sure.)
ON*Star is a bit different in that it was designed to accept remote activation commands because drivers may be too injured to confused to push the "blue button" to activate the system.
Turning our attention to cell phones, most cell phones control their features through software, especially those that use an LCD screen to control the on/off function. Even an on/off button simply raises a signal to power down. But to power up, some power still needs to be funneled to the button(s) to allow power-up. The question is then, is there power to both the receiver and microphone in the OFF position? Power to the receiver would allow for a remote-on feature (like On*Star). Power to a microphone could allow a voice-activation feature, but would also mean the phone monitors sound all the time.
Given the working time for many cell phones when on "standby" (i.e. no incoming/outgoing calls) can be up to a week, I have a hard time believing the "open mic" theory -- that microphones are always "hot" even when the device is off -- because that would cause a battery drain through the DSP (digital signal processing) chips even if the sounds were not transmitted.
I've received calls from friends who's cell phone activiated in a pocket. Most of what's said is unintelligible. But once, a girlfriend had it in the pocket of her blazer while heading out to lunch with a female coworker. Besides hearing the noise of driving, I could hear most of their conversation fairly well, tell which restaurant they dined at ("Hi, welcome to Chili's, my name is.... and I'll be serving you today.") and some of their lunch conversation. Most of it was boring, except for some interesting comments the coworker made about her boyfriend.
Cell phones themselves do NOT have embedded GPS systems (with a few expensive exceptions). The use of GPS is done by the cell-tower/antenna systems and primarily as a source of accurate timing, not positioning. It's possible to locate a cell phone in a general area (served by that tower) but not down to a 1-30 meter range without triangulating from other towers (something they're trying to do with the E911 systems).
How many people here have cordless phones? I picked up a then-new 2.4 GHz system a while back and the first time I used it I could hear some fuzzy talking as I was dialing.
I hit the "channel" button a few times and bingo, I was listening in on a neighbor's conversation with her mother (boring). This is educational as it means your cordless phones can be monitored by any number of people quite easily from outside your house. But, you knew that already, right? Does that stop you from using those phones?I agree w/secdef. One of my clients used the services of a company who did in fact "ping" cell phones. I would receive a telephone call telling me the location of the phone. This happened probably 10 times last year before the client's legal department decided it was not a good idea from a position of liability. Of those 10 times I either found the vehicle when I arrived at the given address or the debtor. Most of the phones with GPS capability have a little target shaped symbol on the LED which indicates if the GPS is activated or has been manually turned off (except for LEOs).